Reverse-osmosis equipment at the Haverstraw Water Supply Project's pilot facility in West Haverstraw, viewed during a 2012 open house. / JOURNAL NEWS FILE PHOTO

Written by

| A Journal News editorial

An artist's rendering of the aerial view of the proposed United Water Haverstraw Water Supply Project, which would draw water from the Hudson River, treat and desalinate it for use by the majority of Rockland residents. / CONTRIBUTED/UNITED WATER NY

More

• For information from United Water New York and the Haverstraw Water Supply Project, visit unitedwater.com/newyork and follow the links. • Learn more about the Rockland Water Coalition at www.sustainablerockland.org.

More

ADVERTISEMENT

United Water’s plan to tap, treat and desalinate Hudson River water and send it through Rocklanders’ taps has been controversial from the beginning. While the utility has put forth the plan as the best way to meet Rockland’s growing water needs, critics have called it a costly, unnecessary project that will drive up water rates.

Now, the state Public Service Commission — which ordered United Water to come up with the extra water supply — has announced it will review its 2006 decision that led to the Haverstraw Water Supply Project plan. That’s good news for ratepayers of United Water.

The commission and utility must ensure that Rockland residents have access to water for years to come.

But expanding the water supply is a costly proposition for Rockland residents — especially when their water bills would have to pay for an energy-intensive desalination process to treat water drawn from the brackish Hudson River.

More water, less waste

Better data on Rockland’s overall water needs have been developed since the commission originally ordered United Water to develop another long-term water supply, part of a rate-increase case. The state first must review the earlier decision and ensure that another long-term water supply is needed.

New information includes a 2011 U.S. Geological Survey study that found Rockland’s aquifers were recharging faster than anticipated. The study, which encompassed data from 2005 to 2010, calls into question whether such a dramatic and costly water solution is needed.

Also, we know more about United Water’s water management — or lack thereof. Since the commission’s 2006 decision that Rockland needed a new water source, United Water has been fined by the state Department of Environmental Conservation for excess water released from Lake DeForest, the utility’s sole reservoir, into New Jersey. The utility blamed the 2008 release on a broken valve, apparently malfunctioning for 18 months. But it was unclear exactly how much, or for how long, water had been sent over the border for use by the utility’s Jersey cohort.

(Page 2 of 2)

Add to that more data on climate change; how will the region’s water supply be impacted by rising sea levels and extreme weather that includes more storms?

'Issues conference'

While the Public Service Commission reviews the need for another water supply source in Rockland, the DEC is developing the final environmental impact approvals for United Water’s Hudson River water plant.

Not only should the commission’s ruling on Rockland’s general water needs be reviewed, but the DEC must re-examine its information on United Water’s specific solution, the Haverstraw Water Supply Project.

Riverkeeper, Scenic Hudson, Rockland Water Coalition, the Rockland County executive and Legislature, state legislators, four towns and a dozen villages have called on the DEC to hold an “Issues Conference,” a trial-like proceeding that allows for sworn testimony and the introduction of evidence. The conference would allow an administrative-law judge to review concerns about the plant. . In a recent Community View, Rockland County Legislature Chairwoman Harriet Cornell cited deficiencies found in United Water’s information supplied to the DEC. “The most significant omission,” she said, was “the lack of documentation regarding how the construction, operations and maintenance costs would impact ratepayers.”

Meanwhile, United Water is seeking a $4.96 monthly “new water supply source surcharge” from ratepayers, to cover $50 million the utility has already incurred on the desalination proposal, including marketing the plan. United Water also has filed a separate request for a rate hike, which would increase water bills approximately $144 a year for atypical family of four.

The commission made the right decision to fully review Rockland’s water needs; the state DEC should be prepared to take a closer look at the Haverstraw Water Supply Project.